Remember when Gary Francis was employed by Swimming New Zealand (SNZ)? We were told this was a new beginning. The old centralised training program had failed. Millions had been wasted on a fool’s mission. Dozens of promising swimming careers were lost. For ten years membership, income and medals had all declined. Finally, faced with sporting oblivion, SNZ had to announce a change in policy. Gary Francis was the answer.

That announcement must have caused Cotterill and Johns some embarrassment. What they said sounded very much the same as Swimwatch had been saying for years. Surely they were not agreeing with Swimwatch? Their sense of embarrassment must have been heightened by the realisation that the change in policy meant accepting ten years of waste and failure. But the really sad part is their abject refusal to accept responsibility for the hurt. The sport lost millions and dozens of young New Zealanders lost their careers and SNZ response was a shoulder shrug and a, “Too bad, oh well never mind, move on.”

Well that is not acceptable. The hurt caused by a policy that SNZ now admits was a failure needs to be addressed. Who was to blame? Was it Peter Miskimmin? Was it Bruce Cotterill? Was it other members of the Board? Was it a succession of Head Coaches like David Lyles? Was it one of the CEOs like Christian Renford? Someone had to be responsible; but not at SNZ. There they have no understanding of the importance of responsibility. They simply brush failure under the carpet and move on to something new.

There is no way it should be as easy as that. If lessons are to be learned from the past there needs to be an open and public enquiry into what went wrong. The scale of the waste was too great to ignore. Those responsible need to be held to account. Their irresponsible stewardship cannot be left unaddressed. SNZ cannot be allowed to shrug off the destruction they have caused.

Except, in this instance SNZ has not moved on to something new. They have simply hidden the old policy behind a fake new screen. Nothing has changed. If anything the waste is even worse. Take this morning for example.

Occupying six lanes of a 25 meter pool was the, so called, “SNZ centralised training squad”. Hovering around, watching their every move, were the Coaching Intern, Mathew Woofe, the Targeted Athlete and Coach Manager, Gary Francis, the High Performance and Operations Manager, Amanda White and a couple of hangers on that I didn’t recognise. There were close to as many people sitting around the pool as swimmers in the pool. And sadly we are paying for all of them. Every one of them, swimmers included, is living on the member’s dime. They need to know that I am not at all happy about paying for what I see in that pool. As far as I am concerned Francis lied when he told the world SNZ was about to embark on a new journey. We were entering a brave new world. That was not true.

If it was true there would be no centralised training group. Those swimmers would all be in the other pool training with North Shore or across in Auckland training with United or out west swimming with Waterhole or up north at Coast. They would not be wasting my membership fees training with SNZ.

But that is what they are doing. Every day at that pool, spending our fees like they always have, like there is no tomorrow. The dishonesty of it all is stunning. The waste is obscene. And as has always been the case – it will not work.

In my time involved in coaching I have lived and coached in six countries. I have met and watched world-class coaches at work; men like Arch Jelley, Arthur Lydiard, Duncan Laing, Mark Schubert. I have coached an Olympic Gold medallist (after she won in Athens), a masters world record holder, 5 international medallists and 24 national champions. In all that time I have never seen anything like the shambles that goes on in the SNZ centralised training group every morning. Believe me it is nothing like a world class swimming program; nowhere near. There is no chance that what goes on there will produce world class swimmers. Our money is being wasted.

I will resist the temptation to spend time here telling you the things SNZ do badly. However I have devoted a whole chapter in my new book, “Shaping Successful Junior Swimmers”, (Chapter Six, page 30) to the coaching faults I have observed in the SNZ centralised training program. If you do take time to read that chapter remember this is not the opinion of one person. These are concrete examples that the coaching world recognises as serious training faults. As you read the chapter and take in the incompetence of the SNZ program, remember that the joke really is still on us. The charade that promotes itself as an international training program; this SNZ swimming folly and is being paid for by us.

Sadly I don’t think those responsible are aware of their inadequacy. I don’t think they know that what they are doing is a waste of their time and our money. But I guess that when it’s all being led by an ex-club age-group coach and an intern we should not expect much more; the blind leading the blind.

No one would allow a bed-orderly to run Middlemore Hospital, or a maid to manage the Sheraton, or a boning-room trimmer to be in charge of an AFFCO meat plant. In my opinion that is exactly what SNZ does every day. Out of their depth they flounder around, costing us money, achieving nothing.

And so we were promised a new direction; a fresh start. Nothing like that has been delivered. It is the same old, same old. In fact it is worse than it has ever been.

It seems like every commentator alive is having a say on Serena Williams’ meltdown in the USA Open tennis final. I guess it’s only fair that Swimwatch adds its voice to the noise. Regular Swimwatch readers probably suspect I have a predisposition to side with the athlete, especially in an argument between an athlete and an official. I admit that suspicion is true. Loyalty to those who play the game is highest on my list of sporting priorities, except on this occasion.

Like most of the world, I have had little personal contact with Serena Williams. I have said hello to her once. When Alison and I lived in Florida our apartment was in a community called the Delray Beach Racquet Club. Our back door opened out onto half a dozen all weather tennis courts. On my way home one evening I was surprised to hear thunderous whacks of a tennis ball coming from behind the tall green mesh fence that surrounded one of the courts. I thought I must check this out, this is not normal.

I opened the gate and walked into the court. I soon realised why the sounds were different. Going through an evening practice were Serena and her sister Venus Williams. I sat down and, for 15 minutes or so, watched in awe. The power, the skill, the training and the fitness were unbelievable. How their racquet strings withstood the force of each blow was impossible to believe. I even recovered a wayward ball and threw it back to Serena. She said, “Thank you” and I stupidly said, “Hello”.

However I guess events in Florida mean I can claim to have spoken to Serena Williams and have acted as her practice ball-boy.

But her behaviour in the 2018 USA final was inexcusable. And believe me I should know. In my younger days involved in swimming I have questioned official decisions on many occasions. Whenever things began to go against me I can well remember feeling a sense of frustration and anger. Frequently that escalated the dispute and resulted in accusations being made that I eventually regretted. I remember angrily telling the President of Athletics New Zealand, Arthur Eustace, that if he didn’t agree with what I wanted he would have “egg all over his face”.

In later years I have adopted a more sensible approach. Knocking quietly on the back door is usually more effective than beating down the front door. I would have thought an athlete as experienced as Serena Williams would have learned the same lesson. But it appears not.

She should be mature enough to have recognised the escalation moments that were leading her down an impossibly blind alley. The first of those was triggered by the decision of her coach to provide advice from the side-line. She was deducted a point for that indiscretion. Instead of getting on with the game she decided to debate the justice of the umpire’s call. That was dumb. The coach had erred. The rules required a penalty. It was a stupid argument.

Then Serena decided to smash her racket in frustration and accuse the umpire of picking on her because she was a woman. To make matters worse she brought her new baby into the debate by claiming that motherhood meant she would never cheat. The end result was that Serena lost a game and eventually the match.

So, what is wrong with what Serena did?

1. Her coach did break the rules. Whether Serena used the information or not does not matter. It was enough that the coach was sending it out to the court where it could have been used. The moral is, if you are in the wrong, don’t keep digging.
2. Rather than getting on with the game she decided to escalate the argument. That is seldom going to have a successful outcome.
3. Without any evidence she accused the umpire of treating her worse than male players. That is not true. Serena was callously calling on the wider “Me Too” movement to justify her frustration. It was a cynical argument that undermined the cause of women who do have valid claims of mistreatment. Women everywhere should be appalled that one of their own would use their plight in order to win a tennis game.
4. She decided to bring her baby into the argument. Serena Williams has received a typical American over-reaction to her tennis comeback after the birth of her daughter. What she has done was commendable but not unique. Here are some women that I can remember who have successfully combined motherhood with elite athletics; swimmers Dara Torres, Amanda Beard and Janet Evans, soccer player Christie Rampone, tennis player Lindsay Davenport, athlete Wilma Rudolph and marathoner Paula Radcliffe. Many mothers have gone on to compete successfully in all sorts of sports. But Serena was prepared to use her daughter to win a tennis game. Using a baby family member like that is inexcusable.

Those errors by the player are hard to forgive. They smack of a self-indulgent, spoilt brat. The USA Championship crowd that applauded her behaviour at the expense of her rival should be ashamed. National loyalty is one thing. Supporting spoilt and corrupt sportsmanship, applauding bad manners, booing a brave and well-behaved rival and cheering verbal and physical abuse is something altogether different. The influence of Trump has clearly extended to American tennis spectators. I would encourage the suggestion that umpires boycott future Serena matches, perhaps not forever but for at least a year. She has brought the sport into disrepute by behaviour way worse than the Sharapova case. Her punishment should be no less.

It has been an interesting week. The Swimming Wellington (SW) Board had to admit they had been managing the business with an unconstitutional number of Board members. A 139 page report was distributed to the Wellington swimming community. There seems to be little dispute; SW behaved badly. The questions are, should there be consequences and what should they be?

It seems to me that members of the Wellington Board are collectively responsible for the events that occurred during their watch. The error of allowing an unconstitutional Board to govern is serious. It is not something that can, or should, be swept under the carpet. Redress needs to be done and needs to be seen to be done. I don’t see any option but for delegates at the Wellington Annual General Meeting to elect a new Board. The current Board has forfeited its right to govern. No one on the current Board should stand for re-election let alone be re-elected. If the old Board was prepared to govern unconstitutionally, what else has it done that we don’t know about? It is time for Wellington to find six new people, untainted by this scandal.

But there are others who must share the blame. In my view Swimming New Zealand (SNZ) is equally guilty. Remember they were asked to approve a request from Wellington for the Board to stay at seven members. SNZ gave that approval. There is nothing wrong with that. SNZ has the constitutional authority to make that decision. However SNZ was negligent when it did nothing about the failure of SW to obtain the approval of their members for the change. In my view, that neglect makes the Board of SNZ as remiss as the Board of SW.

There are too many occasions when the Board of SNZ disregards its responsibilities. They have done it on this occasion and they are still doing it by refusing to provide me with the report into the complaint about my coaching. And there should be consequences. SNZ Board members who approved the SW request should resign or be fired. Their actions have brought the sport into disrepute. For that there is a price that should be paid.

But is standing down the Board of SW and several members of the SNZ Board enough? Remember what these guys did. They operated the Board unconstitutionally. They conspired with SNZ for an unconstitutional Board to continue without the approval of the membership. When they were caught there was no sign of apology or contrition. Instead there was an attack on Swimwatch for pointing out their unconstitutional behaviour. It seems the Boards of SW and SNZ have learned nothing from this experience. They remain as arrogantly unrepentant as ever.

The purpose of punishment is to sanction bad behaviour and prevent it being repeated. I doubt that standing down members of these two Boards will achieve those goals. In the 139 pages distributed to Wellington members there is no sign of apology or repentance. All that can be seen is the egotism that caused their misbehaviour. Therefore I would recommend that some legal way is found to prevent the Board members involved in this fiasco from serving on any company or society board for one year. I’m no lawyer but there seems to be plenty of allowance in the Registered Societies Act for this to be achieved.

A clear message needs to be sent to all swimming administrators that you cannot operate unconstitutionally, you cannot ignore the membership and you cannot hide behind blaming the media for your bad behaviour. For these reasons a one year ban from all positions of management seems to be entirely appropriate.

For a long time Swimwatch has pointed out swimming’s management shortcomings. This episode proves that view was right. Events in Wellington contain lessons of value throughout the country. What other Regions have unconstitutional Boards? We know Auckland has five members on a Board requiring six. Manawatu appears to have seven members on a Board constitutionally limited to six; Wellington’s problem. And Board members like Lin Tozer and Bronwen Radford skirt with the rules by sitting on Regional Boards and working as club coaches at the same time. Lawyers can excuse or justify some of this bad behaviour. Just look at the effort the SNZ lawyer has made to explain away SW’s and SNZ’s actions in this case. But the reality and purpose of the rules should not be avoided by legal manipulation.

If six members is the approved constitutional limit then six members it should be. If the purpose of the rule is to prevent coaches associated with a swimming club sitting on Regional Boards then that is what should happen. No manipulation of employment contracts should allow the rule to be avoided. In my view that is dishonest.

Swimming in New Zealand is being badly managed. It is the ultimate irony that administrators happily disqualify a seven year old for a slight breaststroke hook and sit for years around a table with an unconstitutional Board. Ask them about the disqualification and you would be told that the rules are the rules. Young swimmers have to learn. But apply that logic to their behaviour and, oh no, it’s the fault of Swimwatch.

Remember when the Chairman of SNZ, Bret Layton used his annual report to rip into Swimwatch for pointing out that SNZ had lied on Lauren Boyle’s world record application. In my opinion he used legal niceties to excuse poor management and bad behaviour. What SW and SNZ have done in this case is not new.

Wellington members have an opportunity, at their AGM, to clean house and in the process send a message to the sport that poor management decisions will not be tolerated. For all that’s good in the sport of swimming I hope they take that chance. If those responsible for the chaos in SW are not severely sanctioned, poor administrators will see it as a license for them to misbehave.

Swimming Wellington AGM?

I see Swimming Wellington has finally had to front up to the accusation that the composition of their Board is illegal. On 5 September 2018 Swimming Wellington (SW) distributed 139 pages announcing the Annual General Meeting. Most of that incredible amount of paperwork was devoted to an explanation and defence of SW’s bad behaviour.

There is a huge number of words spent arguing about dates and the number of Board members and the meaning of various clauses in the SW and Swimming New Zealand (SNZ) constitutions. But all of it boils down to a debate between three lawyers. On the one hand Eugene Collins and Paul Radich agree that the details of when and how the SW Board first operated outside their constitution can be debated. The fact that they are operating illegally now cannot be disputed. Furthermore they agree that the illegal composition of the SW Board puts in doubt the legality of decisions made while the Board was illegal and raises issues about whether any Region’s constitution is compatible with SNZ’s central constitution. Looks like Moller and Miskimmin may not have been too good at making sure their thirst for power was legally sound.

On the other hand, lawyer, Michael Smyth, argues that things are not nearly as bad as that. But before explaining why, he spends a page explaining how he personally had nothing to do with the preparation of two possibly flawed constitutions. I love these guys who have to cover their arse; there’s nothing wrong here, but if there is it had nothing to do with me. I have little respect for that behaviour. He then goes on to explain why the dates and number and constitutional clauses used by Collins and Radich are open to question. He even attempts to defend the apparent contradiction between the SNZ and SW constitutions.

In these conflicting views, I tend to believe Collins and Radich. Why? Because Smyth’s explanation sounds way too much like defending the indefensible to me. Smyth’s opinion gives me the impression of searching for any clause or use of words within a clause that can be used to justify an illegal Board. In my opinion his report is not an unbiased overview but a defence paper that can be used by SW and SNZ to diminish their bad behaviour and stunningly bad management. As sure as God made little green apples I’m picking that’s exactly what SW and SNZ will use the Smyth paper for.

But the paragraph in the 139 pages that did attract my attention was the SW reference to Swimwatch. Here is what the CEO said.

I love these guys who find throwing insults at a critic more rewarding that addressing the complaint the critic is making. They get into “abusive, disrespectful and destructive attitudes” without once recognising that Swimwatch said, ages ago, that they were operating illegally and now they have been caught a long way up a very turbulent creek without a paddle. SNZ and SW have forever found it more rewarding to play the man, not the ball. And it shows in much that they do.

The point here is not whether Swimwatch is turning officials away from serving on the SW Board. The point is whether the illegal behaviour of the SW Board frightens any sane observer away. Who on earth would want to expose themselves to the personal risks involved in serving on an illegally constituted Board? That is the real question.

But the phrase that appears to have upset SW the most is the comparison, used in Swimwatch, with central African dictatorships – “like some central African dictatorship”. Let me explain why that is a valid and appropriate comparison.

Since the 1990s, at least 30 presidents in sub-Saharan African nations have tried to extend their regimes past their constitutional limits. These “constitutional coups” are a way to cement power. Between 2005 and 2015, presidents in Senegal, Burkina Faso, Congo Republic, Congo, Uganda and Rwanda attempted to extend their terms in office. Any opposition especially from the press was strenuously resisted. The press became the enemy accused of “abusive, disrespectful and destructive attitudes”.

It is difficult to see how that is all that different from what has gone on in SW. There has undoubtedly been an effort to operate outside constitutional limits and now the game is up, now they have been caught with their pants down, it’s all the fault of Swimwatch – yeah right. As I said just “like some central African dictatorship”.

Has is ever occurred to SW that they are in their current situation because they behaved like “like some central African dictatorship”?

The Chairman of Swimming New Zealand, Bruce Cotterill, is bloody incredible. He is forever writing books and giving speeches about good management. But his latest effort is a classic. It’s not that long and so I have copied the whole thing in the table below.

The mass of English errors doesn’t help Cotterill’s cause. For example in paragraph three he says, “Then he specifically asked me”. Cotterill goes on to list four things he was asked “how could he have a conversation with the guy”? How could he “raise the issues he had”? How could he avoid “the person concerned throwing a tantrum”? How could he avoid the employee “threatening to leave”? Four questions means it is not specific. Cotterill uses fake words like specific to make himself sound good.

All that, however, rings pretty hollow when you note that question marks are included at the end of the first three questions but full stops are missed from “questions” four and five.

The word “it” in paragraph seven should be “is”.

The word “will” before the word “be” has been missed out of the last paragraph.

If someone like Cotterill is going to lecture us on good management it would help if he learned to write the Queen’s English. Or at least get someone from the 5^th grade to proof read his stuff before he pushes send. But all that is secondary to the point of this post. What is stunning is that Cotterill is lecturing us about management principles that have no relationship to the way he runs Swimming New Zealand. He is a world expert at do what I say, not what I do.

For example I imagine even the severest critic of Swimwatch would agree I qualify as a disgruntled member of Swimming New Zealand. According to Cotterill that entitles me to a cup of coffee and a five question chat. Five questions! The guy hasn’t spoken a word to me in five years. His article is an explosion of platitudes meaning nothing. He would no more have a cup of coffee with David Wright than fly to the moon.

But let’s indulge Cotterill shall we? In his absence let’s discuss his five questions.

1. How is everything going?

I’m good thank you. Training is going well. The New Zealand Short Course Championships are three weeks away. I think Eyad is in line to swim well. I’ve had a couple of health issues recently but thanks to the National Health Service they are under control. My main concern is the poor health of swimming in New Zealand. That seems to be terminal.

2. How do you think the Company is going?

Couldn’t be worse is the answer to that. I am concerned that since you have been on the Board competitive membership has declined by 8.1% from 6161 to 5660. I am concerned that the number of coaches has gone down by 54.7% from 543 to 246. I am worried that total membership has dropped by 24.9% from 25,467 to 19,118. Total income has gone down by 14.7% from $4.2million to $3.5million. And New Zealand has failed to win a medal at an Olympic Games. I can’t think of one measure that has improved in the time you have been on the Board. The productivity of the business has declined by 17.4%. By any measure that is a disaster. When are you going to leave?

3. How do you think the Company could be doing things better?

You and the organization have got to stop lying to the members. There are character failings in the management of the organization that must be corrected. For example you told me I would receive a copy of the investigation into complaints against my coaching and then hid the report. You lied to me. You told the membership you would find out why government funding had been reduced and then never reported back. That was a lie by omission. Your business said the introduction of Gary Francis heralded a new beginning. In my opinion that was a con. You kept the national training squad; nothing changed.

And then there are Swimming New Zealand’s structural problems. The constitution is manifestly undemocratic. Antares place staff should be cut by 50%. Swimming New Zealand’s direct involvement in learn to swim should cease. Private operators should be encouraged to promote independent compliant swim schools. With the exception of the weeks before a big meet training camps should be abolished. They are a waste of money. A qualified person should be appointed to run the swimming side of the organization – not some club age group coach. Swimming New Zealand should foster a coach driven environment, not the current heaven for bureaucrats that is Antares Place. The national training squad should be closed. Its swimmers should be absorbed into local clubs; more qualified to manage their careers.

4. Tell me about the things you are doing really well.

I’m doing the best I can to hold your feet to the fire. Oh I know you pay little attention to what is written here. But even you have to admit that I told you ten years ago the centralised training program would fail. Just think how much better off New Zealand swimming would be if you had listened. You didn’t listen then and you failed. You should listen now.

5. Tell me about the things you are struggling with.

I’m struggling to understand your dishonesty. I am especially concerned about you lying to me about providing me with the report into the complaint about my coaching. Everything about that was bad. It reflects poorly on you, your organisation, your management and your character. With that hanging over us I struggle to believe a word you say.

Now, that coffee. Mine’s a double long black, thank you.